If you’re new to UserVoice, two things to keep in mind are (a) List items (and item rankings) represent community interest in features, and not the actual priority list for the product team; and (b) Suggestions made using this forum will be moderated if they do not actually represent a feature request (or if too many different ideas are included in one suggestion).

How can we improve the Windows dev platform?

Enter your idea or find an existing suggestion

(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

From my recent experiences it seems that an app submission can pass certification with no problems, but then a subsequent submission that only makes a very minor code change such as bug fix can fail certification. I accept that this will probably happen in general because full checks cannot be applied every time and different testers may pick up on different things.

However, it concerns me that one day I will run into the following hypothetical scenario:
I release a major app update which passes certification fine. I then notice a critical bug in the app which I need to fix as soon as possible. I release the bug-fixed version to the store, but it spends 3 days in certification and then fails certification. I then have to work out why it failed and make the necessary updates or etc and resubmit it for certification which could take another 3 days. That means it's taken me a week to deliver a critical bug fix, which could lose a lot of customers etc. Note that I have already experienced less serious versions of this scenario.

Therefore I would like to propose the ability to mark an app submission for an already-published app as a bug fix, which would either skip or fast-track manual certification (automatic certification using the Certification Kit would still be done). I realise this could be open to abuse, but perhaps there are some rules you could produce which a submission would have to obey in order to qualify - for example the app manifest should be unchanged except for the version number.

Thanks for considering this idea.

From my recent experiences it seems that an app submission can pass certification with no problems, but then a subsequent submission that only makes a very minor code change such as bug fix can fail certification. I accept that this will probably happen in general because full checks cannot be applied every time and different testers may pick up on different things.

However, it concerns me that one day I will run into the following hypothetical scenario:
I release a major app update which passes certification fine. I then notice a critical bug in the app which I need to…

Please provide some consistency in the certification process. I submitted a game for publishing on Monday. It went through the entire process in about 2 hours. The game wasn't set to be published until Friday at Midnight.

Over the course of the week, some fixes were made to the game's code and was resubmitted for publication on Thursday around 10am.

It's been sitting in "Certification in Progress" now for 2 days. If it doesn't go through, I'm going to miss my published release date.

If you can't give a reasonable estimation on release times, maybe let us put multiple releases in the queue. That way, if the second one gets certified on time, it can take precedence over the previous version.

Please provide some consistency in the certification process. I submitted a game for publishing on Monday. It went through the entire process in about 2 hours. The game wasn't set to be published until Friday at Midnight.

Over the course of the week, some fixes were made to the game's code and was resubmitted for publication on Thursday around 10am.

It's been sitting in "Certification in Progress" now for 2 days. If it doesn't go through, I'm going to miss my published release date.

If you can't give a reasonable estimation on release times, maybe let us put multiple releases…

I made the mistake of registering a dev account using the type company instead of individual. Now I cannot change it to individual. This is not good enough. I have to be able to change dev account type. Please make this happen as soon as possible.

Current certification process is too heavy and still not automated. It could take up to 5 days to submit and publish update, because If you submit small bugfix in Friday, your submission will be delayed until Monday and then it could take up to 3 days. I think, there is no need in manual certification more often than once a month or one time per minor version.

In the developer dashboard page there is the option to review and comment on costumer feedback. This is a very nice capability and thank you for providing it! Unfortunately, if the gives feedback on your application anonymously there is no option to comment on that feedback or change status etc. I understand if the comment is anonymous then they will not receive emails on my comments, but it would still be very nice to be able to comment on the feedback and track the status for my own use or for future customers to see if they are perusing previous feedback posts. So, can you allow us to comment and mark status on anonymous feedback please? Thanks!

In the developer dashboard page there is the option to review and comment on costumer feedback. This is a very nice capability and thank you for providing it! Unfortunately, if the gives feedback on your application anonymously there is no option to comment on that feedback or change status etc. I understand if the comment is anonymous then they will not receive emails on my comments, but it would still be very nice to be able to comment on the feedback and track the status for my own use or for future customers to see if they are perusing previous…

Can you please add an IAP which would have a recurring payment (automatically charge user monthly / annually / etc)? Basically a subscription. This would simplify development of apps which now need to prompt the user to go buy an IAP each time it expires and it also makes the experience better for users (who might be used to this model from Android / iOS)

At the moment a VSTO add-in cannot be published on Windows Store or on Office Store.
An idea could be extending Desktop App Converter tool in order to manage VSTO add-in.
Another solution could be simply extend Office Store in order to publish VSTO add-in.

As a developer that has to stay on top of feedback, I receive feedback from users around the world. Some of these users are dirtbags and send me garbage feedback like "asdfasdfasdf". I cannot delete this feedback.

"Customers cannot switch subscription periods using the http://account.microsoft.com/services page for their Microsoft account. To switch to a different subscription period, customers much cancel their current subscription and then purchase a subscription with a different subscription period from your app."

Your app must not contain or display content that a reasonable person would consider pornographic or sexually explicit.

Pornographic and sexually explicit needs to be well defined. Microsoft support working for Report App are taking down apps which have partial, but no ******* nudity. Partial nudity is not pornographic nor sexually explicit. Game of Thrones is on the Windows Store and contains full frontal nudity and graphic *** scenes, so it is quite ridiculous when apps are removed that have partial nudity or body parts blurred out or covered.

Furthermore, Age Ratings in Dev Center Dashboard can be set per app according to the ****** content in the app. If the app fills out this information there it should not be taken down unless it has pornographic or sexually explicit material, which is not well defined in store policies.

Windows Store Policy for Adult Content:

11.7 Adult Content

Your app must not contain or display content that a reasonable person would consider pornographic or sexually explicit.

Pornographic and sexually explicit needs to be well defined. Microsoft support working for Report App are taking down apps which have partial, but no ******* nudity. Partial nudity is not pornographic nor sexually explicit. Game of Thrones is on the Windows Store and contains full frontal nudity and graphic *** scenes, so it is quite ridiculous when apps are removed that have partial nudity or body parts blurred out or covered.

I have a disk imaging (which I have already converted) application that writes bytes directly to disk (USB and SD cards). It requires admin rights to get a lock on the disk. The app gets rejected during submission to the store as some features are disabled as admin privileges are required. It would be good if we could submit utility tools to the store as there is no way to perform these tasks without admin. Maybe warn the user when downloading the app or more stringent verification process for these apps but don't block them completely as you're hurting both devs and users. And a user will just go elsewhere to get the app and end up downloading from shady app from the web causing them to get viruses as you won't allow elevated apps in the store. So in a round about way you're actually raising the chances of users getting viruses by blocking these apps as they just get them from the web instead.

I have a disk imaging (which I have already converted) application that writes bytes directly to disk (USB and SD cards). It requires admin rights to get a lock on the disk. The app gets rejected during submission to the store as some features are disabled as admin privileges are required. It would be good if we could submit utility tools to the store as there is no way to perform these tasks without admin. Maybe warn the user when downloading the app or more stringent verification process for these apps but don't block them completely as you're hurting both…

Could you add the link for the feedback hub to the store's app review form? I believe that the 'app review' and 'report for developers' should be divided.
Because - a lot of user post a bug report to the app review on the Microsoft Store.
But, In fact, most of these posts should be handled with feedback hub. By using feedback hub, we - app developers - can contact with the users to get know the detail and track the defects.
Is it possible to add the note to the review form as following?
"If you have a trouble for using this app or want to send a report to the app developer, please consider to post it to the feedback hub, instead of review. Here is a link --> [link] "

Could you add the link for the feedback hub to the store's app review form? I believe that the 'app review' and 'report for developers' should be divided.
Because - a lot of user post a bug report to the app review on the Microsoft Store.
But, In fact, most of these posts should be handled with feedback hub. By using feedback hub, we - app developers - can contact with the users to get know the detail and track the defects.
Is it possible to add the note to the review form as following?
"If you have a trouble…

Currently we have no notifying system to the developers when the customer add new feedback to the feedback hub. We, developers should check the developer dashboard every day and day. It's tooo painful. Is it possible to add the notification system? Just ping by mail is enough. Uservoice already have it.

There is no category specifically related to science apps; I think having such a category would provide a more refined ability to find such an app in the Store. The closest category (the one I'm using) is Education. Here are a couple of examples: I can envision a mobile app that is a "Tree Finder" that provides the ability to identify a tree genus/species by selecting from an imagery collection, or an Astronomical app that provides ephemeris data (position of sun, moon, planets, etc), in a graphical format. My particular application locates earthquakes on a map and allows the user to receive additional detail.

There is no category specifically related to science apps; I think having such a category would provide a more refined ability to find such an app in the Store. The closest category (the one I'm using) is Education. Here are a couple of examples: I can envision a mobile app that is a "Tree Finder" that provides the ability to identify a tree genus/species by selecting from an imagery collection, or an Astronomical app that provides ephemeris data (position of sun, moon, planets, etc), in a graphical format. My particular application locates earthquakes on a map and allows the user…

Once a flight group is selected for a package Flight Submission it cannot be changed.

Allowing it to change would help greatly in our release process. Currently to perform our final Staging test we submit a package flight and add a group that targets our internal testers. This works well.

Once we complete internal testing many time we want to open up the distribution to a larger group. The group on the submitted flight cannot be changed without submitting a new flight which may require a rebuild since the same version cannot be submitted and waiting for another certification many time it is not just a couple hours and can be over night.

If we could change the group with out a resubmission this would allow us to transition from internal test to an external beta very easily. Even better if multiple groups are allowed we could just add the external group and remove it as we like and still keep the internal group linked. Less group management in the latter option of using multiple groups.

Once a flight group is selected for a package Flight Submission it cannot be changed.

Allowing it to change would help greatly in our release process. Currently to perform our final Staging test we submit a package flight and add a group that targets our internal testers. This works well.

Once we complete internal testing many time we want to open up the distribution to a larger group. The group on the submitted flight cannot be changed without submitting a new flight which may require a rebuild since the same version cannot be submitted and waiting for another certification many…